London’s Gatwick airport is closed to aircraft following multiple sightings of illegal drones, disrupting flights for as many as 115,000 people on one of the busiest travel days of the year. Lines of passengers circled Gatwick’s two terminals Thursday and hundreds hunkered down on departure-hall floors, with the airport saying at 11:30 a.m. that it could give no indication of when it might reopen. Police said the incursions were clearly deliberate though most likely not terror related. (www.bloomberg.com) 기타...

“We believe this to be a deliberate act to disrupt the airport,” Gatwick police commander Superintendent Justin Burtenshaw said in a statement. “However, there are absolutely no indications to suggest this is terror related.”RPV’s deliberately flown over the airport (not just somewhere in the flight path by mistake), and disrupting operations is not a frat prank. Just because no one was killed or shouted something in Arabic, doesn’t mean it isn’t terrorism. Deliberate disruption to flight ops is pretty bad. The fact that they were helpless to do anything about it speaks volumes and will be noted by those perpetrating this stunt and I’m certain this was merely one, of many tests to come.Are we going to have to jam the frequencies these things operate on around airfield perimeters? Will it even help?

One drawback with jamming frequencies is that this could disrupt the commercial aircraft using the airport as well. There would have to be an instrument that can home in on the frequency of the drone without affecting the legal users within the airport perimeter.Can anybody design such an instrument that can home in and jam the frequency of the drone and maybe even take over control of it...? The military may already have such equipment or something similar.

Most of the drones of that type are GPS directed. They're not using any frequency that could be disrupted without disrupting all GPS related information in the area. They are pre-programmed, launched, perform their "mission" and return to wherever they are told without any radio communication.

My neighbor has two daughters who lounge next to the pool. One of the idiot drone types up the street used to fly his drone over their yard, at the time it was assumed he was taking photos...later proven true. Larry got a hose blaster attached to his garden hose...down came the drone.

Cops showed up questioned Larry told the drone operator nothing we can do. The drone was never found.

Yes sir. UK is circling the pipes. I'm not sure enough people see it that way to save their country though. If the yellow jackets had an effect in France, perhaps UK could find the spirit of resistance also.

There are hundreds of drone detection and interdiction technologies out there. Don't know in the UK, but in the US, you can only use detection. By law, you cannot interdict or interfere in any way with the drone. Congress has passed some regulations allowing certain entities to use abatement, but the scope is incredibly limited. I am afraid that until something really bad happens and hundreds of lives are lost, nothing significant will be done about this problem.

Incorrect. Unless expressly written into a deed of ownership, an owner of real property has rights to the sky above and the earth below.Also, an intruding privately owned aircraft and other objects are assumed to have an adverse effect to "the complete and full enjoyment" of one's property.Consequences are the property owner has a right to defend his right to that enjoyment.If what you claim is true, then the rights of drove users usurp ALL property rights.That said, in order for your claim to be true, you'll have to prove it.

So, Mayo One flying a mission to pick up a heart attack victim goes over your property at 500 feet, you feel you have the right to shoot it down?

ABC 7 News is filming a funeral procession of a fallen police officer flying at 1,000 feet, do you feel you have the right to shoot it down as well because it went over your property?

If I fly at 150 feet to photograph the fall harvest from a public right of way, you also feel that because I can capture your property in that photograph, you can shoot my equipment down? It is black letter law that my First Amendment rights prevail, I don't care if it from a street corner, from a bucket truck, or from 150 feet in the air.

You have the same right to fly over public property as you have to drive over it - both subject to regulation and access control. Hovering over someone else's property is a different story, as is hovering beside someone else's property.

I guess your reference to the 1st Amendment is freedom of the press. It is not freedom to surveil.

And before you start to puff up, just because something is technically legal now, doesn't mean that it will remain so. And waving it about has the potential to galvanize the folks who make the rules to fix that for you.

Replace your drone with a camera tower and think through how this will play out. If you are taking a couple snapshots and moving along, the people will be with you. If you are recording an event for someone, the people will be with you. But if you are just out "exercising your rights" to video tape anything within eyesight, but brought a camera-tower to do it, then the folks might be with the guy who asks you to move along and if you don't, sympathetic to his taking a rock to it.

Even legitimate news paparazzi aren't generally seen in a positive light.

So, please do not by any means use weak excuses to cover bad behavior and encourage antagonistic interactions that while technically wrong will feel right to most folk. They might just make it the law and impact those of us who are minding our behavior.

First off, the protections that allow for Freedom of expression are also covered in the first Amendment not just Freedom of the Press.

Now then, public property. Access to public property is usually unabridged except for obvious dangers and events which would inhibit public safety. But generally, it is fair game whether it be in Times Square, or East Park, Mason City. (see Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia)

I accept the restrictions where there is a general expectation of privacy, because my work is not voyeuristic in nature. However, there are times where I have a legitimate reason for “hovering” be it timing of climate, or waiting on a flock of vultures, ad nausium. I do the same with my tripod and Nikon.

I am no apologist for those who behave in an illegitimate manner, and that was not my intent at all.

However, when I read time and again those who would shoot on sight any drone, you can understand my concerns. Why should I be penalized for the miscreant actions of others? Yet, people did paint with that broad brush.

I understand those concerns, and most of those examples fall well within the "reasonable man" approach. My caution is that "expression/privacy"* argument tracked for as long as everything was manned and/or obvious. But autonomous drones who can pop up 400' are a potential game changer.

Technology has the potential to change a lot of laws.

So previously, if you wanted privacy from public areas, you could plant trees, put up a fence line, a curtain, or the like. Now someone pops up over any of that and claims that's his/her "right" to operate from public lands and his/her "right" to video anything they can see from the drone.

*I wasn't tracking that "expression" was the argument against privacy, but that doesn't change much.

Incorrect. Many people are allowed to own and use guns, but getting the required permits and where you can shoot is more strictly controlled. The police can be armed although the normal bobby on the street is unlikely to be armed. Merry Christmas

No kidding, don't you dare say anything about the Islamic owners of the UK, they didn't even buy the UK, they were allowed to steal it. The English "Bulldog" lost its teeth about the time it joined the EU.

Not that this drone thing is a result of an influx of Muslims into the UK...But, I once saw and interview of a radical Muslim Cleric living in the UK say the following. "We will use your freedoms to bury you"....Meaning the UK

So now the police have busted two "ecoterrorists" they think might be responsible. If so, a well publicized 20 year sentence with a lifetime supply of sand infused lubricant would be appropriate if hanging is off the table.

I keep hoping one of these clowns who do these stunts will really suffer the consequences. A clear message - like a 10 year prison sentence might encourage miscreants to think twice about "droning" a major airport. What happened at Gatwick is just not acceptable. And the idea previously mentioned of tying a "device" (iPhone, etc.) to a drone is a marvelous idea.

I am afraid not much will be done in terms of chasing these drone operators down and shooting these things out of the sky until something really bad happens and one of these drones brings down an aircraft and innocent lives are lost.

Bullets being fired into the air, and then killing someone as they fall, is a myth that was debunked many years ago. In fact, Mythbusters did an episode on this very thing once, and busted the myth with testing.

If you noticed at the end of that particular show, they did interview a doctor who did state that falling bullets do kill people. A 4 year old boy was killed by one during church services in Decatur GA in 2010. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/year-old-killed-celebratory-bullet/G3Kmeb2mX4RGW28fTW4RjK/

I'm not buying the story. I don't see how anything that amounts to a pebble being dropped from, say 5k feet is going to kill anyone. I'm sure it would hurt like hell, but doubtful it would penetrate the skull.

There are too many reports of such on a yearly basis. While I enjoyed the Mythbusters immensely, some of the stuff seemed to be a stretch. That episode only showed or tested a bullet going straight up, not being fired at an angle less than 90 degrees. Once you raise a weapon over 0 degrees, which is something rifleman are taught in an indirect way, impact zones are farther away. Simple ballistics.

How about some science? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5912041/ has more details into why. Have you ever seen what a bullet looks like? Do you understand ballistics as well? A weapon does not have to be fired straight up into the air for a bullet to fall down. The axiom of what goes up, must come down is very true, no matter which angle a weapon is fired.

Equipping drones with low power transponders that broadcast a signal that can be picked up by ATC within the 5 mile limit (at least in the US) would be beneficial to airports so they can be tracked easier. It would make locating both the dron and operator easier.

Most drones are built by the owners from readily available parts. Motors, props, available anywhere. 3D print a frame. Buy or breadboard your own electronics. You could only mandate manufacturers to add transponders.

Took one out 2 years ago with a 12 guage,full choke #4 shot. It sort of just fell apart. We were hunting in a marsh adjacent to an airport. It had been over the runway and tarmac. The Airport Manager thanked us,as they had closed the facility twice due to this hunk of junk.

After seeing the pattern of your posts, I've decided that you're the one that posted the newspaper ad that chided hunters for not going to the grocery store to get their meat, where no animals were harmed....

How big do you think these drones are? Shoot them down with what? The smallest munition a typical fighter has would be about 6"-8" long - where do you think that round winds up if they miss the drone (which is perhaps 24" x 24")?

These drones are a major threat to airport ops and an absolute pest. Should be 10 years imprisonment for the morons responsible... because of their blatant and stupid irresponsibility. Tim Wilcox has the right idea. If you're good with a shotgun, you would be very useful.

No, it is not the drones, it is the Operators. Incidents like this give those of us who operate within the law and regulations a bad name.

And as for shooting drones down, I would not recommend it in certain areas. I operate on public property, and private when I get express consent from the land owner. Period! Anyone destroys my personal property, will face criminal charges (at least in Iowa and Illinois). In addition, in certain municipalities, you cannot discharge a firearm, that also is a criminal charge.

The solution is to somehow, enforce the laws and regulations in place. And I am all for equipping drones with transponders so they can be identified, and criminal acts can be traced.

If “operators” cannot police themselves, the people (gov) will do it for them. As usual, it takes only a few to ruin it for all. Unfortunately, it will not happen until blood and guts are part of the story.

This is the same stupid argument as "it's not the guns, it's the user" Ban the drones, we don't need them. If you want to keep them then allow drivers to drink and drive, give everyone the right to own an unregistered gun

I beg to differ. If used within the law and FAA regulations, a drone is just as useful a tool as the Nikon FM2 was. It has opened up a whole new aspect of photography that I could not attain from the ground.

And for the record, my equipment is registered with the FAA. It keeps a flight log to show what I have done, where, and when. That technology has already been used to defend my actions as a photographer.

Jeffery Beaumont - Congratulations. One of the DUMBEST comments I have ever read on the internet. Your logic is exactly what will bring America to her knees.

Ever hear of the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? When you break the law, you're supposed to be punished. At least that's how things used to be ... as my state releases criminals convicted of gun violations, yet wants to restrict MY right to bear.

Kenneth's opening sentence is right on the money. Drone's don't fly themselves, cars don't drive themselves, and guns don't magically jump off a table and randomly take people out.

What in the hell happened to the Royal Air Force? Is their mission NOT to defend the UK airspace and avoid disruption to common people's lives? This stupidity of the politically correct already killed Britain, and it's doing the same to the whole of Europe. Time to stop and think!

Just curious, how big do you think these drones are? I could see having a policeman come out and try to shot it down with his gun/rifle (if it were safe to do so) but the RAF and their aircraft are going to be able to do little, unless they accidentally ran into it (chances of spotting it at the speeds they fly would be low), ingested it into their engine, lost the engine, and then crashed into the residential community below....good plan. but i definitely agree with your last statement - Stop and Think

Congress needs to limit the power of the drones just like they did for personal walkie talkies. The power of the drone transmitters allowed are too high and should be limited for personal use drones. The range of drones should be line of sight and limited range. The FCC can not do anything until Congress enacts laws to limit the range. Any modification to boost the range would be illegal and should have heavy fines and jail time. A special license would be required for the higher powered drones and would be required to transmit signals that ID the drone and location information at all times. As a matter of fact, all drones should be required to transmit an ID signal and location information.

The FAA considers drones (actually sUAVs) to be aircraft. Same as a C150 or B737. In the US interfering with an aircraft is also against the law. A shotgun may not be that effective against a drone flying at altitude. In any case the drone just has to fly higher. Since the operator is already flying in a restricted area, I don't think he's that concerned with flying below the drone altitude limit. Depending on the shot used, a shotgun is only effective to about 200ft (usually a lot less).

It doesn’t necessarily have to be used against the drone. Used against the operator solves the problem also and sends a significant message to future operators. Considering the lives being threatened, it would be justifiable.

There's an easy solution to this problem. Like in the old days when trains had cow catchers attached on the locomotive (I believe the proper term is a pilot), we could simply attach big steel plows on the front of aircraft to harmlessly push aside these poor, wayward drones.

Gatwick Airport is SHUT DOWN as drone sightings force ALL flights in and out to be suspended

Flights at London’s Gatwick Airport, the UK’s second-busiest airport, have remained suspended as authorities investigate reports of two drones flying over its airfield, inconveniencing passengers days before the Christmas holiday period.